2005 Supreme(SC) 1152

2005(6) Supreme 150
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
B.P. Singh & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Surinder Singh @ Shingara Singh —Appellant
versus
State of Punjab —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1154 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 896 of 2005)
Decided on 6-9-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sudhir Walia and Mahinder Singh Dahiya, Advocates.
For the Respondent : D.P. Singh, Arun K. Sinha and Ms. Avneet Toor, Advocates.

Important point
Principles laid down in various decisions on the point of grant of bail to a convict pending appeal are guidelines which Court must bear in mind and are not rule for grant of bail on completion of specified period of detention in custody.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 389—Bail pending appeal against conviction u/s 302 IPC before High Court—High Court dismissed bail application on ground that convict-appellant had remained in actual custody after conviction only for two years and five months and case was not covered by High Court’s judgment in Dharampal’s case—Appeal—Speedy trial was a fundamental right implicit in broad sweep and content of Article 21 of Constitution of India—Decisions of Supreme Court on the point laid down broad guidelines which Court must bear in mind while dealing with application for grant of bail—Guidelines laid down in Dharampal’s case were to be kept in mind by Courts dealing with application for grant of bail in a pending appeal and there was no hard and fast rule of universal application.

       Held : It is no doubt true that this Court has repeatedly emphasized the fact that speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid Article confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair, or just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has also been emphasized by this Court that the procedure so prescribed must ensure a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. It is conceded that some amount of deprivation of personal liberty cannot be avoided, but if the period of deprivation pending trial becomes unduly long, the fairness assured by Article 21 would receive a jolt. These are observations made in several decisions of this Court dealing with the subject of speedy trial. In this case, we are concerned with the case where a person has been found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. The Code of Criminal Procedure affords a right of appeal to such a convict. The difficulty arises when the appeal preferred by such a convict cannot be disposed of within a reasonable time. (Para 8)

       It is significant to note that all these decisions only lay down broad guidelines which the Courts must bear in mind while dealing with an application for grant of bail to an appellant before the Court. None of the decisions lay down any invariable rule for grant of bail on completion of a specified period of detention in custody. Indeed in a discretionary matter, like grant or refusal of bail, it would be impossible to lay down any invariable rule or evolve a strait jacket formula. The Court must exercise its discretion having regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances. What the relevant facts and circumstances are, which the Court must keep in mind, has been laid down over the years by the Courts in this country in large number of decisions which are well known. It is, therefore, futile to attempt to lay down any invariable rule or formula in such matters. (Para 9)

       We agree with the submission urged before us that the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of the High Court are only in the nature of guidelines and the High Court should not be understood to have laid down an invariable rule to be observed with mathematical precision. In fact in the very first paragraph of the judgment the learned Judges observed that they were making “an attempt to frame certain guidelines” for the grant of bail. Difficulties may arise if such a direction is treated as an invariable rule in the matter of grant of discretionary relief. The rule laid down in Dharampal’s case may be inferentially understood to mean that unless a convict has undergone five years imprisonment, he should not be released on bail. This would again lead to travesty of justice, because in a given case having regard to the evidence on record and the reasoning of the Court convicting the accused, the High Court in an appeal may well be persuaded and justified in granting bail to the appellant even while admitting his appeal. We, therefore, hold that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Dharampal’s case laid down guidelines which ought to be kept in mind by Courts dealing with applications for grant of bail in a pending appeal. It does not lay down any hard and fast rule of universal application. As we have observed earlier, it would be futile to lay down any strait jacket formula in such matters. (Paras 11 and 12)